Kent County pledges $210,749 to coordinate Millington earthwork, delegates signing authority

Kent County commissioners voted unanimously March 18 to commit $210,749.01 toward coordinated earthwork so fill from the Millington Crossing wastewater treatment plant site can be exported and reused at the Millington Senior Village project.

The payment, approved to help defray contractor and schedule costs tied to moving soil from the county wastewater site to the nearby senior-housing property, also authorizes the board president to sign a letter of intent and related documents after county legal review.

The vote follows several weeks of meetings among county staff, Millington Crossing Associates, Millington Senior Village representatives and contractors. Public works staff presented a line-by-line cost-share breakdown that started with a county “fair share” of about $181,005.15 but rose after adding a Bramble Construction demobilization charge, potential per‑diem charges and optional road work. During discussion commissioners and stakeholders negotiated a package that included a $10,000 cap on one contractor demobilization exposure and the county’s agreement to assume a defined share of costs for primary and secondary earthwork.

Public works representative Dan Mattson said the assembled cost spreadsheet split items where all parties benefited and assigned sole-benefit items to the party that received them. He summarized the county’s negotiated exposure and the savings the coordinated approach created: “The straight line math shows that if the county were to do this ourselves with the small contribution from Millington Crossing, it would be about $63,000 more expensive,” he said, later noting updated scenarios increased projected savings to roughly $93,000 when certain optional items were excluded.

Frank Hodges of Home Partnership, who represents the senior-housing project, told the commission his contractor had placed geotechnical borings and he expected lab results within days. Hodges said he included a soil-quality clause in draft agreements because the senior project must meet HUD compaction standards: “I need to include this language so that if I didn’t want to be compelled to have to buy soil if it didn’t meet that compaction test. But I’m going to know that within a day or two,” he said.

Lance, representing property owner Russ Richardson and Millington Crossing Associates, confirmed Richardson’s contribution to the cost-sharing framework and said Richardson would not market the property while negotiations proceeded. County counsel and staff told the board they would finalize a letter of intent and a memorandum of understanding with the developers and contractors; the county is not yet a signatory to the draft MOU but would be asked to accept obligations consistent with the board’s vote.

Commissioners asked that any agreement mirror the terms discussed in the meeting and tasked staff and counsel to complete legal review and finalize documents before the next meeting. Staff reported appraisals for the parcel should be available about a week after the meeting and that invoices from contractors could be timed so the county’s first payment could fall in the next fiscal year to ease cash‑flow timing.

The motion approved at the meeting includes a county commitment of $210,749.01 and delegation of signature authority to the board president for documents consistent with the board’s direction and subject to county attorney review. Commissioners asked staff to return with final documents, soil‑test results and contract terms at the April 1 meeting or earlier if agreements can be completed.

The county’s action is procedural authorization to proceed with negotiated cost‑sharing and does not itself create construction contracts beyond directing staff to finalize and sign documents that conform to the board’s vote.